Arxiv:Hep-Ph/0403045V2 5 Mar 2004 .Maltoni F

Les Houches Guidebook to Monte Carlo Generators for Hadron Collider Physics Editors: M.A. Dobbs1, S. Frixione2, E. Laenen3, K. Tollefson4 Contributing Authors: H. Baer5, E. Boos6, B. Cox7, M.A. Dobbs1, R. Engel8, S. Frixione2, W. Giele9, J. Huston4, S. Ilyin6, B. Kersevan10, F. Krauss11, Y. Kurihara12, E. Laenen3,L.Lonnblad¨ 13, F. Maltoni14, M. Mangano15, S. Odaka12, P. Richardson16, A. Ryd17, T. Sjostrand¨ 13, P. Skands13, Z. Was18, B.R. Webber19, D. Zeppenfeld20 1Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 2INFN, Sezione di Genova, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16146 Genova, Italy 3NIKHEF Theory Group, Kruislaan 409, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands 4Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1116, USA 5Department of Physics, Florida State University, 511 Keen Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4350, USA 6Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 7Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K. 8 Institut für Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Postfach 3640, D - 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany 9Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510-500, USA 10Jozef Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, SI-1000 Ljubljana,Slovenia; Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19,SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 11Institut für Theoretische Physik, TU Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany 12KEK, Oho 1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan 13Department of Theoretical Physics, Lund University, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden 14Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi”, via Panisperna, 89/A - 00184 Rome, Italy 15CERN, CH–1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland 16Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, University of Durham, DH1 3LE, U.K. 17Caltech, 1200 E. California Bl., Pasadena CA 91125, USA 18Institute of Nuclear Physics PAS, 31-342 Krakow, ul. Radzikowskiego 152, Poland 19Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K. 20Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA Abstract Recently the collider physics community has seen significant advances in the arXiv:hep-ph/0403045v2 5 Mar 2004 formalisms and implementations of event generators. This review is a primer of the methods commonly used for the simulation of high energy physics events at particle colliders. We provide brief descriptions, references, and links to the specific computer codes which implement the methods. The aim is to provide an overview of the available tools, allowing the reader to ascertain which tool is best for a particular application, but also making clear the limita- tions of each tool. Compiled by the Working Group on Quantum ChromoDynamics and the Standard Model for the Workshop “Physics at TeV Colliders”, Les Houches, France, May 2003. October 22, 2018 1 Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. The Simulation of Hard Processes 3 3. Tree Level Matrix Element Generators 6 3.1 Matrix Element Generators for Specific Processes . ............... 6 3.2 Matrix Element Generators for Arbitrary Processes . ................ 9 4. Higher Order Corrections – Perturbative QCD Computations 12 5. Parton Distribution Functions 21 6. Higher Order Corrections – Showering and Hadronization Event Generators 25 6.1 General Purpose Showering and Hadronization Event Generators . 30 6.2 Specialised Initial and Final State Radiation Programs ................... 37 6.3 Programs for Diffractive Collisions . ............. 38 6.4 Specialised Decay Programs . ........ 40 7. Resummation 41 8. Combining Matrix Elements with Showering 43 8.1 Programs using NLO Matrix Elements with Showering . ............. 44 9. Conclusions 45 10. Acknowledgments 46 1. INTRODUCTION 1 The complexity and number of simulation programs for hadron colliders has grown considerably with the prospects of LHC physics approaching and Tevatron Run II results coming in. With these programs has come a shift towards increased modularity. A physicist analysing hadron collider data often ob- tains the most accurate theoretical predictions by combining components of many different simulation programs—minimum bias from one generator, the signal process from another, and yet more programs for background generation. This sort of diversification is also happening for the generation of a single process. It is becoming feasible to use one program to produce a hard process, another to evolve the event through a parton shower algorithm, and perhaps a third to hadronize the coloured products of the shower. With this sort of modularity, the complexity of Monte Carlo simulation tools is reaching that of a complicated detector system. At the same time the expertise needed by the users is increasing. At the very start of a physics analysis, the experimenter is confronted with a simple question, which Monte Carlo tools are best suited to map the theoretical prediction for my measurement onto the experimental result? The goal for this guidebook is to provide users inexperienced with event simulation a starting point to answer the “which tools?” question. A complete description of Monte Carlo generator techniques would require a many-volumed book. Instead we provide the basic definitions and explanations 1Contributed by: the editors. 2 which a new reader will need to appreciate the literature. We do so in the most politically incorrect way, by not quoting the original papers in most cases (since the foundations are textbook matter by definition), and striving for plain jargon-free language. We follow this with abstracts describing many of the currently available simulation programs, aiming to serve as a jumping off point into the specific references documenting the programs and the techniques employed within them. The abstracts will also point users to the (author supplied) correct references for citations to their papers. Finally, the editors wish to apologise to the authors of Monte Carlo codes for which we have not provided abstracts. We chose to restrict this work to hadron colliders only, and limited the scope to general purpose techniques, which are more or less directly related to event generator codes. For this reason, we could not list the many NLO or resummation programs which are available for specific processes. Despite this limitation, there are still a large number of program abstracts included in this guidebook. In all likelihood we have missed a few packages and we apologise to those authors in advance. 2. THE SIMULATION OF HARD PROCESSES 2 Theoretical predictions form an integral part of any particle physics experiment. On one hand, they help to design the detectors and to define the experimental strategies. To serve such a purpose, these predictions must reproduce as closely as possible the collision processes taking place in real detectors. A largely successful way of achieving this goal is through the so-called event generator codes, which are used to produce hypothetical events with the distribution predicted by theory—i.e. the frequency we expect the events to appear in Nature. On the other hand, for an unambiguous interpretation of the experimental results (for example, extracting with high precision the non-computable parameters of the theory or deciding whether some new physics phenomena has been observed) other types of codes, which we shall call cross section integrators, are better suited than event generators. In a loose sense, these codes can also output events (see sect. 4. for a precise definition); however, such events can be used only to predict a limited number of observables (for example, the transverse momentum of single-inclusive jets) and are not a faithful description of actual events taking place in real detectors. Currently, event generators and cross section integrators have reached a considerable sophistica- tion. The purpose of this introductory section is to show that both of them originate from the very same simple description of an elementary process (denoted as hard subprocess henceforth) and not necessarily a physically-observable one. To stress the latter point, let us design a gedanken experiment which, at an imaginary accelerator that collides 45 GeV u-quarks with 45 GeV u¯-quarks, observes a dd¯ quark pair produced through the decay of a Z0. The process of interest is therefore uu¯ Z0 dd¯ at 90 GeV. Any theoretical model → → describing this process must start from the knowledge of its cross section 1 d cos θdφ dσ(uu¯ Z0 dd¯) = (uu¯ Z0 dd¯) 2 , (1) → → 2ˆs |M → → | 8(2π)2 where the decay angles (θ, φ) of the Z0, are the two degrees of freedom of the problem3. is the M relevant matrix element and sˆ is the centre-of-mass energy squared. We can now use eq. (1) to write an event generator or a cross section integrator. The first step is to sample the phase space. The phase space is the multi-dimensional hypercube which spans all of the degrees of freedom. For this process it is the two dimensional space 1 < cos θ< 1, 0 <φ< 2π. The − procedure of choosing the cos θ, φ variables using a uniformly distributed random number generator is said to define a candidate event. The candidate event’s differential cross section (or event weight) dσ is calculated from eq. (1) and is directly related to the probability of this event occurring. The average of many candidate event weights dσ is an approximation to the integral dσ and converges to the h i measured cross section. R 2Contributed by: M. Dobbs, S. Frixione. 3The rotational symmetry of the collision implies that the differential cross section is independent of the azimuthal angle φ. 3 At this point the candidate events are distributed flat in phase space and there is no physics infor- mation in the distributions. Two methods can be used to derive physical predictions from these candidate events: (A) the event weights may be used to create histograms representing physical distributions, or (B) the events may be unweighted such that they are distributed according to the theoretical prediction. Procedure (A) is very simple and is what is done for cross section integrators. A histogram of some relevant distribution (e.g. the transverse momentum of the d quark) is filled with the event weights from a large number of candidate events.

Load more